35 ms·

Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

130 points by jimmybot 8y ago

lordnacho 8y ago
Would be really interesting to see this done on a map of Europe. You'd think there's a lot more public transit used. As a visitor to the US, the main thing that strikes me is always the vast amount of car related space there. Wider roads, massive car parks. Places with no sidewalk! And I'm also surprised at the two places I thought would have more public transport usage. Really, only 30% of NYC? I guess it's sparse outside Manhattan? SF I kinda understand because what I saw of the underground looked way too small for a city of several million.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  > And I'm also surprised at the two places I thought would have more public transport usage. Really, only 30% of NYC? Taxis don't count as "public transport" here.
  - marcosdumay 8y ago
    I think the less ambiguous name is "collective transport". Taxis are public transport almost everywhere.
    - dullgiulio 8y ago
      There is also the term "mass transit" that excludes taxis exactly because they don't help solving the congestion and pollution problems.
    - njarboe 8y ago
      "collective transport" is a great name for it. Has the same root as collective farming and similar problems to that enterprise.
- alchemism 8y ago
  The mass transit systems outside of NYC proper are designed to feed people in and out of the city core in two large waves, and [are] not designed to move people around the larger urbanized region (the "Tri-State area") outside of those two waves. So for the large majority of residents, a car will still be a necessity. Even Manhattanites will eventually feel the need buy/rent a car so they can do things like go to a forest or a quiet beach for a day.
  - jermaustin1 8y ago
    When I lived in Manhattan, I used ZipCar regularly. It was provided free as a "benefit" by my employer. If I had to pay for it or monthly parking or anything like that, I would have just stayed in town.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      In my experience a lot of people only find Manhattan tolerable because they can get out of the city on a regular basis. Assumes a certain income level of course. But those I know who live in Manhattan, SF, etc. without cars rent Zipcar and conventional rentals a lot. As well as Uber, etc. Many people are just largely stuck to public transit lines of course. But the demographic that is actually moving into cities (college educated professionals) mostly doesn’t think that way.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    That is true of all public transit systems, period. If you want to get from Bayonne to Yonkers, you're going to have to go through the central hub of Manhattan, just like if you want to get from Garching to Unterschleißheim, you're going to have to go through the central hub of Munich. This is just the nature of public transit outside city centers: they will have a hub-and-spokes shape. That's because this shape suits the needs of pretty much everybody: travel from one spoke to another is way less common than travel to and from the center, and if you really need that route and can't afford the time of going through the hub, most metros cover the concentric routes it with lighter options (like two-digit NJTransit busses and the Hudson-Bergen light rail). The corner cases of suburb-to-suburb trips and short distance vacations aren't important enough to necessitate complete infrastructure capitulation to drivers. And for the vast majority of New Yorkers, a car isn't necessary. Car ownership is around 45% in New York City, and that number goes way down if you exclude Staten Island and the outer parts of Queens and Brooklyn that don't get subway service.
- HanayamaTriplet 8y ago
  The population of San Francisco itself was actually only about 880,000 as of 2017. The Census Bureau calculated a net 20% increase in SF's daytime population from commuters in 2010[0], so that would bring the number of people up to just over a single million at the lower bound. [0] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-weekday-population-increase-in-San-Francisco https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-weekday-population-increas...
jdlyga 8y ago
I moved from the long island suburbs to New York City, and it's very interesting taking the subway to work instead of driving. It really feels like the subway people and the drivers are living in two separate countries. It's a totally different way of living, and I really enjoy it.
peterwwillis 8y ago
It's weird, but I first noticed this when I went to Greece. It's kind of difficult to get around in Greece. They don't have a wide-ranging national train system like some other European countries. They have a bunch of regional bus lines to get you from area to area, and they may only run once or twice a day. That'll mostly just get you between major cities, and they take a while. I also noticed how difficult it was to get from my SO's place in NJ farm country to a nearby big city. From Philadelphia, I have to take an Amtrak up to Newark (or a SEPTA regional line up to Trenton, and then an Amtrak/NJT to Newark), then another train to the closest NJT stop in NJ, and then bike a couple dozen miles. That's at least 4 hours, compared to 1.2 hours by car. Nearby towns and cities have shuttle services between other cities/towns, but trying to get to Philadelphia with those would require 5 or 6 transfers, basically the entire day, if you can even time it right to do it in one day. Anyone who lives out in the boonies and wants to work a well-paying job in the city is going to need to commute hours by car, which is expensive both in transportation cost and in time. Having a car is expensive, but anyone trying to improve their station in life will need one to get to a better job. And the time it takes to transport themselves takes them away from things like family/personal time, childcare, continuing education, or additional jobs. So transportation will definitely hold the country's economic development back (in terms of increased access to jobs that pay better), as long as most of the good jobs are located in hard-to-reach metropolises. If you suggest a plan for people to ditch their car in exchange for better public transit, the response seems to be "but I like my car!". Nobody wants to give up a convenience just to improve the economy.
- herbst 8y ago
  In Switzerland only very few people of my social circle own a car and the fast majority of them needs it for work. Compared to neighbouring countries having a car is not even that expensive. It's just a lot more confident to use public transport mostly because it's cheap and just great. I think people will learn to use public transport options once it's affordable, reliable and everywhere. As counter example Austria where I know a lot more people with cars. Their public transport isn't bad but expensive and unreliable.
soared 8y ago
These maps don't show a dam thing and the analysis is super weak. Its common sense that people in cities make more money and are more likely to walk to work. Then workers in rural areas drive alone to work and make less money. https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://xkcd.com/1138/
- athenot 8y ago
  It would be interesting to show ratios on the maps.
- aVx1uyD5pYWW 8y ago
  Their maps use percentage (rather than absolute numbers) of people in the area commuting with a given transportation mode. So it is a good usage of these maps imo.
  - soared 8y ago
    It still doesn't provide any useful info. 70% of the map has no data, and it literally only shows urban vs. suburban vs. rural areas on every map.
    - burlesona 8y ago
      I mean, it’s a map of commuting, so what else would it show?
      - soared 8y ago
        My point is a map seems like a poor choice for the data. If half of your map is empty, and you’re really only showing a grouping of 3 categories, maybe use a graph or something else.
        burlesona 8y ago
        Yeah that’s fair, thanks for clarifying.
sandworm101 8y ago
>> "a smaller-than-average share of workers drives to work alone in more compact college towns" We all talk about trying to get people our of their cars, but imho isn't all about cities or even transport systems. Imho it is about jobs. The great divide is between those who work in places that support alternative to private vehicles and those that do not. If your employer wants you to work changing hours on short notice, public transport doesn't work. Asking someone to show up an hour earlier than normal is difficult if that means they won't have a bus/train available. I want to see studies comparing various sectors. I'd bet good money that those working government and/or education jobs (the college towns in the above quote) are less likely to drive cars to work. And conversely, those who work private sector jobs (swing shifts, late hours, on-call etc) are more likely to drive cars. Personally, I now work in a government job (military) with a few hundred people in one building. Lots of people do bike/walk/run to work. We have bus stop right in front of our base, but nobody uses it. It just isn't reliable. Our bosses don't want to hear that we are late because the bus was stuck in traffic. We also sometimes have to work strange hours/shifts. Sometimes our day ends "whenever it ends". 2000 quickly becomes 0300. Will the bus get me home at a random hour and with enough time to sleep before the morning? My car/bike/feet sure will.
- flyingpenguin 8y ago
  > Asking someone to show up an hour earlier than normal is difficult if that means they won't have a bus/train available. I lived in Seoul for close to a year without a car. I never used a taxi and never looked up or planed my routes before I left home/work/shop/etc. The longest I remember waiting for a train/bus was around 4minutes. In this instance, I saw my bus pulling away as I was walking up. There was another of the same bus in line behind 3 other buses. I have lived in Denver without a car for close to 4 years. I pay 4x as much in public transit fees, I know all train times and bus times by heart and I plan when I leave based on those times. I usually bike to/from the train because it is literally faster than the bus stop less than 100ft from my house. We have a chicken and egg problem. Edit: God I miss the trains in Seoul. I don't know if they had times but the rule seemed to be if a train was pulling out, you just had to wait for the next train to finish pulling in.
- esotericn 8y ago
closeparen 8y ago
Warning: speculation. Suppose that a city’s value and economy descend in large part from connectivity. A transit system is extremely useful at a few very specific points, but your connectedness drops off sharply as you get even a few blocks away from it, due to the extreme inefficiency of walking or (worse) waiting for a connecting bus. A road network’s utility is broad and diffuse, with gentle gradients of utility from place to place, as an extra few miles means little. Two points have to be very far apart indeed before they are noticeable different in terms of access/connectedness. So it makes complete sense to me that transit-oriented cities should be higher-maximum-value, higher-variance, while car oriented cities should be lower—maximum-value but much more equal. Exactly what the article finds.
- perennate 8y ago
  Doesn't a transit system complement a road network? Rapid transit serves the most trips when either the source or destination (or both) are in the urban center. The road network is typically most congested in the urban center. Thus, transit reduces congestion in the areas that would otherwise be most congested, making the road network more useful. Perhaps "car-oriented cities" simply haven't yet reached the density (and size of the high-density area) where transit becomes necessary.
  - the_gastropod 8y ago
    This is kind of a chicken-egg situation. You can't reach the high-density requirement when cars are the primary means of transportation. Cars are an extraordinarily low-density means of transportation. And some evidence, based on city age, seems to suggest that cities built with cars in mind (e.g., non-east coast cities in the U.S.) tend to sprawl quite a bit.
    - perennate 8y ago
      That's true, I guess that ties back into a counterargument to the parent's point, that the connectedness issue with transit would be mitigated had the city been planned differently.
    - 8y ago
grawprog 8y ago
I'm not sure why but the transit system in my city seems to keep making decisions and changes that benefit people making short trips within the central areas while detrimenting those that use it to commute outwards to work. I'm not sure the reasoning for this. But every time the schedules or fares change it always becomes more difficult, takes longer and costs more to travel to outer areas.
- cgy1 8y ago
  Off the top of my head, the reason is probably because there just isn't a critical mass of people heading in the other direction that would make financial sense for them to run trains/buses in that direction, not to mention the last mile problem of how to get to your job after you're dropped in the suburban transit center with no public transit available to get you from the transit center to your office.
  - grawprog 8y ago
    No it's more things like plans to change the fare system to one based on distance travelled, changing bus schedules so they end up more filled up but no longer arrive at offices and businesses for a time when people typically begin work, increasing multiple zone fares while leaving single zone fares the same, new train and bus routes being put in to service already well serviced areas while ignoring outlying areas. Back in 2001 or so the plan for the next train line was for a heavily underserviced area here. It was delayed and instead a line was put in in an area with multiple busses servicing it. They finally put the line they originally talked about around 2 or 3 years ago. But it still doesn't cover as much area as the original plans were and rather than putting new trains for this line like the did with the other one, they took some from the line that services the farther away areas. There are two big rushes of people in both directions. The trains and busses are packed always. The only reason I can think of is because they know most people commuting to work on transit have no choice. Where has people taking one time short trips usually do and they're trying to incentivise them to take transit at the expense of commuters. It also just so happens those areas tend to have a higher percentage of wealthier people living in the and members of the transit board.
cwal37 8y ago
Working my way through Alain Bertaud's Order Without Design: How Markets Shape Cities[1] at the moment and it's proving to be a really great resource for understanding this kind of thing and in the process marrying together a bunch of urban planning concepts and principles from economics. Also has some pretty great graphic design work on the charts and figures side of things and a nice layout wherein there are many small sections of 1-2 pages or less with condensed lessons. Not halfway through yet, but I feel pretty comfortable recommending it if you're into the topic area of this article (urban mobility, how commutes+jobs shape urban areas, etc.). [1] https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/order-without-design https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/order-without-design
rsync 8y ago
Here is everything you need to know about public transit, commuting and car culture in America: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wy2O/state-farm-backstory-truck-song-by-john-taylor https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wy2O/state-farm-backstory-truck-song...
bloomca 8y ago
I don't think there is such a great divide. The greater divide is between people who own a car (or cars) and who do not, however, seems for USA it is a divide between New York City and the rest of the country. Also, I can comment on one thing I personally enjoy a lot – walking. I lived in many European cities, and recently moved to USA, so I can comment on it. To be able to walk, you need to live close enough to your work / some places of interest (like ~3–4 km is a threshold usually), the path should be interesting and beautiful. USA fails miserably at "interesting and beautiful" part. Grid system makes it super boring, a lot of buildings are just a relatively small building and huge parking space around. There are no parks in between, no yards – moreover, you can bump into unsafe places! Architecture (in downtowns) is straight up horrible (although it is subjective). So, after couple of walks I have no desire altogether to walk around anymore – it is dirty, ugly, in some places overcrowded (since everybody works at the same spot in the downtown and time, essentially).
- rst 8y ago
  It's not just New York; there are a few other urban areas with significant numbers of commuters by transit -- Boston and San Francisco (with the crowd traveling on the "Google buses", and the number of tech jobs downtown) both come to mind. But there are lots of cities (Los Angeles most notoriously) where a car-free life is nearly impossible.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    I did car free in LA for awhile, it’s becoming an increasingly popular option actually. I did it by living close to work in a mostly urban area (Westwood), but one of my colleagues commutes in from Hollywood somewhere, he seemed happy with how it worked out.
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  I too enjoy walking around European cites much more than US cities. On a Brussels trip I commented on how interesting and winding the streets were to a family friend, she pointed out that it made it harder for tanks to drive through a city. That matter of fact response brought into sharp focus the disparity between cites that had been rebuilt several times and those which haven't. There was also the adaptation from cities that were built when walking and horses were the main transportation modes which remain amenable to walking today. All said, it seems like a renewed interest in the impact of urban design on things like walkability and livability have come back into fashion and some cities are taking their cues from that with their urban renewal projects. As a really interesting example of that has been the evolution of zoning laws which allow for mixed use buildings (commercial and residential) which are sprouting up all around the Bay Area. This is something that was pretty much unthinkable in the late 90's.
wil421 8y ago
Basically looks like a population density map with NYC being the exception. Did anyone expect anything different?
julienb_sea 8y ago
I find this interesting. Of my tech coworkers and friends in Seattle, its 50/50 on car ownership, but the vast majority do not commute to work by car. I personally drive, but that is due to circumstance where public transit is inconvenient for me and I can easily afford to drive and park downtown, saving me 30-45 min both directions. In my view, driving a car becomes much more necessary once you exit the 20-something tech stage of life and actually have a family to support and move around. Also, unpopular opinion, public transit is only worthwhile for commuters. Shared uber/lyft is more efficient in pretty much all other situations, except for people wealthy enough to live in easy transit corridors. Subsidizing ride share infrastructure via uber/lyft would benefit a much broader class of people than investments in cute but pointless public transit like our Seattle streetcar.
curtis 8y ago
> We are cleaving into two nations—one where daily life revolves around the car, and the other where the car is receding in favor of walking, biking, and transit. Walking, biking, and transit are not actually the same thing, except that they are "not driving". So it's more accurate to say that there are two kinds of commuters, those that take cars and those that don't. There's absolutely nothing new about this though. It's likely true that more people are not driving these days, but that's got more to do with the fact that more of us are living in large cities where it's simply not possible for everyone to drive, and where transit is more practical because of the density. This notion that at some point in the future there will not be people commuting in cars is just dumb, and kind of tiresome. There's a lot of noise being generated by people who think driving a car is flat out immoral, and I'd contend this isn't a moral issue it's just a practical one, and I really wish it were treated this way.
- the_gastropod 8y ago
  Ignoring all the other problems, like car crashes, urban land-use, infrastructure spending to support them, etc, their emissions alone should be a clear moral issue when talking about cars. When the alternatives (walking, public transit, and bicycling) are orders of magnitude more efficient, it's absolutely a moral issue.
  - briandear 8y ago
    Walking, public transport and biking are orders of magnitude more inefficient if you have kids or have to transport anything bigger than a backpack.
    - the_gastropod 8y ago
      Millions of New Yorkers (and billions worldwide) have kids, no car, and get along just fine. Subway trains are quite capable of carrying virtually anything you can carry. And bicycle trailers are pretty impressive specimens. And when you need to haul anything truly massive, sure, rent a Uhaul. But to pretend you need a 2-ton vehicle because you've got a couple little kids and a load of groceries for the week... c'mon.
ozten 8y ago
That visualization is too zoomed out to be useful. I was curious to zoom in on cities and some curious rural patches.
johngorse 8y ago
Why do people with car drive alone to work? There is a big chance that someone from your neighborhood is going at least in your direction. We practice co-driving in Europe all the time.
- jpindar 8y ago
  We call it carpooling, and it's not that uncommon, I've done it. Some highways have special "High Occupancy Vehicle" lanes to encourage it.
  - kaybe 8y ago
    May I point to this corresponding mode of transport for car-less people: http://slug-lines.com/ http://slug-lines.com/
- jqt 8y ago
  Because it's better to not rely on anybody else, mostly.
- umeshunni 8y ago
  In my experience (US, SF Bay Area/Seattle) - people do this for a few reasons: 1. The coordination and time overhead of sharing their commute with another person is not worth the marginal benefits - HOV lanes are not present in most of the area to make a difference in commute time and gas prices are low enough that splitting a drive isn't worth the savings. 2. Their commute also involves other errands (shopping, going to the gym, dropping off or picking up children from school/daycare) that are inconvenient to do with another person in the car. In summary, it's convenient to drive alone and you are not penalized sufficiently for doing so.
- scarface74 8y ago
  I don’t want to deal with other people when I am in the car. I like the solitude. Some days I may be working from home, some days I may go in late and/or stay late. I don’t want the responsibility of being a means of transportation for another adult.
protomyth 8y ago
If you want the base data https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/ https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/
fulafel 8y ago
0.5% bike to work and 6% walk to work. Interesting that the difference is so large, you'd think that so many more people live withing short biking range vs walking range. I wonder what the stats are for other continents.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  I assume in America walking is seen as a lot safer due to being physically separated a little bit from cars.
- jly 8y ago
  I do both (walk + bus and bike) but it's a lot more walk these days even though it takes almost 2x as long as biking for me. The main reason is that the bike commute is uncomfortable and it feels pretty dangerous, even though it's not that far. This is a big problem in US cities: roads are designed and built for cars, while cyclists and pedestrians are an afterthought.
- souprock 8y ago
  The law says you bike in the road, but most people can only bike at sidewalk speed. We'd need to change the law.
- Zanta 8y ago
  Safety is a big concern, and a place to safely store your bike (at home and at work) is another big one. I'd imagine lots of the walkers live in condos or apartments where storing a bike can be really tough.
njarboe 8y ago
I have never seen a train this empty during commute hours. An empty seat on each side of a person? Standing room only and packed like sardines is more realistic (and a needed density for economic viability of trains not subsidized by others). BTW, cars are also a mode of "transit".
skizm 8y ago
More than 50% of commuters drive to work alone in NYC? That seems insane to me. I don't know or know of a single person that drives to work in NYC. Tolls and parking alone would eat around $10k per year, plus even if it was free the traffic seems to make it not worth it when compared to subways. Also, if you're willing to shell out the money to drive, why not just take a cab or uber at that point? Is there some large subset of workers I'm not seeing that it would be more economic / convenient to drive into or around the city on a daily basis? (truck drivers / cab drivers / uber drivers don't count I wouldn't think?)
- beefalo 8y ago
  The data is for the whole NYC metro area, so the drivers are probably people that live and work in the suburbs and are not commuting to Manhattan. I have seen numbers that put people in the city proper at like 75% no car ownership.
SystemOut 8y ago
I don't understand why Americans love their cars so much. I grew up in Oklahoma and you pretty much have to have a car. Huge amount of land, not many people. Virtually no public transportation. I moved to the Bay Area back in 2000 and car-pooled for exactly one year of that time and then took BART the other 16 years before moving to Chicago. Even though I like driving I really hate traffic. Why would I sit in traffic when I can read/sleep/work/etc. It was cheaper as well. I wouldn't even talk about a different job unless they were within reasonable distance to a BART station. I moved to Chicago recently and now take Metra (commuter train) and then walk 15 minutes. It's a little sucky in winter (today was 16 F, Friday is expected to be -6 F in the morning - dress in layers and have warm boots). Even then, I wouldn't drive. The cost, the time, the potential for accidents just aren't worth it to me. I get why people drive in rural areas. You pretty much have to. But I don't know why folks don't push for mass transit more in cities. Cars are so expensive and monopolize your entire time getting to/from somewhere. I tried car pooling and really didn't like it since I'm essentially trapped with the same people every day. Mass transit can be crowded but I can still read or listen to audio books if I don't have a seat. But cars are ingrained in so much of the culture here plus I think a lot of people won't admit it but just don't like being around other people.
- syn0byte 8y ago
  Many large cities have terrible public transit that isn't just impractical but impossible. Public transport doesn't even run around the time of morning I head in to the office at 6am. If it DID run and I could take it, I would have to spend 3 additional hours each day in commute time between long round-about routes and waiting/switching bus/train lines. I would pay 5 dollars per day for this service. Almost double the cost to drive given the current 2.60/gal gas prices.
- zjaffee 8y ago
  Having a car gives you a stronger sense of having control over your transportation, namely you don't have to rely on other people, on timetables, or the stability of the regional transit system in order to get from place to place. You do have to deal with traffic, but for many people it's worth the tradeoff.
- 8y ago
pellefant 8y ago
Can be please stop seeing this propaganda here from Citylab whos aim is to promote UNs Agenda 2030?
frogpelt 8y ago
I know their job is to talk about cities and stuff. But what's the point? The United States is the 4th largest country in the world and the third most populous. Is it any wonder that we have a wide diversity of experiences?
ilaksh 8y ago
Most places in the US are just very spread out. It's too much area and too low density for trains and buses to cover. Simple as that. When I lived in New York I could walk to the ferry and then walk to my designated skyscraper a short distance away. But in southern California or Fort Worth, the only place with significant density is downtown. The houses and malls are spread over large distances. Sure there are sidewalks and it is possible to walk to the closest mall or Walmart, but that may easily take 20 or 30 minutes, that is the only place you can walk to and you generally feel like you are taking your life in your hands crossing traffic. You can theoretically live in a downtown area but for most places in the US it's too expensive for the average person to buy a home or even for most people to rent. And again there is a massive area around the downtown that you would not be able to go to without a car. It just comes down to this: there is just so much land that people wanted to use all of it. So it is designed to sprawl out. Then people get used to having single family houses with big yards and the skyscrapers are far away and everyone needs a car.
grabbby 8y ago
Grabbing really only takes on a disconcerting tone when your grabbing tits, grabbing ass, grabbing them by the balls. When the context is food, it’s mostly harmless.
wffurr 8y ago
Interesting definition of "class" in the article. It tries to contrast the knowledge-based "creative class" with the "working class" when it reality both are primarily earning wages and salaries rather than dividends and capital gains.

130 points by jimmybot 8y ago

Would be really interesting to see this done on a map of Europe. You'd think there's a lot more public transit used. As a visitor to the US, the main thing that strikes me is always the vast amount of car related space there. Wider roads, massive car parks. Places with no sidewalk! And I'm also surprised at the two places I thought would have more public transport usage. Really, only 30% of NYC? I guess it's sparse outside Manhattan? SF I kinda understand because what I saw of the underground looked way too small for a city of several million.

JoshTriplett 8y ago
> And I'm also surprised at the two places I thought would have more public transport usage. Really, only 30% of NYC? Taxis don't count as "public transport" here.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  I think the less ambiguous name is "collective transport". Taxis are public transport almost everywhere.
  - dullgiulio 8y ago
    There is also the term "mass transit" that excludes taxis exactly because they don't help solving the congestion and pollution problems.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    "collective transport" is a great name for it. Has the same root as collective farming and similar problems to that enterprise.
alchemism 8y ago
The mass transit systems outside of NYC proper are designed to feed people in and out of the city core in two large waves, and [are] not designed to move people around the larger urbanized region (the "Tri-State area") outside of those two waves. So for the large majority of residents, a car will still be a necessity. Even Manhattanites will eventually feel the need buy/rent a car so they can do things like go to a forest or a quiet beach for a day.
- jermaustin1 8y ago
  When I lived in Manhattan, I used ZipCar regularly. It was provided free as a "benefit" by my employer. If I had to pay for it or monthly parking or anything like that, I would have just stayed in town.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    In my experience a lot of people only find Manhattan tolerable because they can get out of the city on a regular basis. Assumes a certain income level of course. But those I know who live in Manhattan, SF, etc. without cars rent Zipcar and conventional rentals a lot. As well as Uber, etc. Many people are just largely stuck to public transit lines of course. But the demographic that is actually moving into cities (college educated professionals) mostly doesn’t think that way.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  That is true of all public transit systems, period. If you want to get from Bayonne to Yonkers, you're going to have to go through the central hub of Manhattan, just like if you want to get from Garching to Unterschleißheim, you're going to have to go through the central hub of Munich. This is just the nature of public transit outside city centers: they will have a hub-and-spokes shape. That's because this shape suits the needs of pretty much everybody: travel from one spoke to another is way less common than travel to and from the center, and if you really need that route and can't afford the time of going through the hub, most metros cover the concentric routes it with lighter options (like two-digit NJTransit busses and the Hudson-Bergen light rail). The corner cases of suburb-to-suburb trips and short distance vacations aren't important enough to necessitate complete infrastructure capitulation to drivers. And for the vast majority of New Yorkers, a car isn't necessary. Car ownership is around 45% in New York City, and that number goes way down if you exclude Staten Island and the outer parts of Queens and Brooklyn that don't get subway service.
HanayamaTriplet 8y ago
The population of San Francisco itself was actually only about 880,000 as of 2017. The Census Bureau calculated a net 20% increase in SF's daytime population from commuters in 2010[0], so that would bring the number of people up to just over a single million at the lower bound. [0] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-weekday-population-increase-in-San-Francisco https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-weekday-population-increas...

jdlyga 8y ago

I moved from the long island suburbs to New York City, and it's very interesting taking the subway to work instead of driving. It really feels like the subway people and the drivers are living in two separate countries. It's a totally different way of living, and I really enjoy it.

peterwwillis 8y ago

It's weird, but I first noticed this when I went to Greece. It's kind of difficult to get around in Greece. They don't have a wide-ranging national train system like some other European countries. They have a bunch of regional bus lines to get you from area to area, and they may only run once or twice a day. That'll mostly just get you between major cities, and they take a while. I also noticed how difficult it was to get from my SO's place in NJ farm country to a nearby big city. From Philadelphia, I have to take an Amtrak up to Newark (or a SEPTA regional line up to Trenton, and then an Amtrak/NJT to Newark), then another train to the closest NJT stop in NJ, and then bike a couple dozen miles. That's at least 4 hours, compared to 1.2 hours by car. Nearby towns and cities have shuttle services between other cities/towns, but trying to get to Philadelphia with those would require 5 or 6 transfers, basically the entire day, if you can even time it right to do it in one day. Anyone who lives out in the boonies and wants to work a well-paying job in the city is going to need to commute hours by car, which is expensive both in transportation cost and in time. Having a car is expensive, but anyone trying to improve their station in life will need one to get to a better job. And the time it takes to transport themselves takes them away from things like family/personal time, childcare, continuing education, or additional jobs. So transportation will definitely hold the country's economic development back (in terms of increased access to jobs that pay better), as long as most of the good jobs are located in hard-to-reach metropolises. If you suggest a plan for people to ditch their car in exchange for better public transit, the response seems to be "but I like my car!". Nobody wants to give up a convenience just to improve the economy.

herbst 8y ago
In Switzerland only very few people of my social circle own a car and the fast majority of them needs it for work. Compared to neighbouring countries having a car is not even that expensive. It's just a lot more confident to use public transport mostly because it's cheap and just great. I think people will learn to use public transport options once it's affordable, reliable and everywhere. As counter example Austria where I know a lot more people with cars. Their public transport isn't bad but expensive and unreliable.

soared 8y ago

These maps don't show a dam thing and the analysis is super weak. Its common sense that people in cities make more money and are more likely to walk to work. Then workers in rural areas drive alone to work and make less money. https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://xkcd.com/1138/

athenot 8y ago
It would be interesting to show ratios on the maps.
aVx1uyD5pYWW 8y ago
Their maps use percentage (rather than absolute numbers) of people in the area commuting with a given transportation mode. So it is a good usage of these maps imo.
- soared 8y ago
  It still doesn't provide any useful info. 70% of the map has no data, and it literally only shows urban vs. suburban vs. rural areas on every map.
  - burlesona 8y ago
    I mean, it’s a map of commuting, so what else would it show?
    - soared 8y ago
      My point is a map seems like a poor choice for the data. If half of your map is empty, and you’re really only showing a grouping of 3 categories, maybe use a graph or something else.
      - burlesona 8y ago
        Yeah that’s fair, thanks for clarifying.

sandworm101 8y ago

>> "a smaller-than-average share of workers drives to work alone in more compact college towns" We all talk about trying to get people our of their cars, but imho isn't all about cities or even transport systems. Imho it is about jobs. The great divide is between those who work in places that support alternative to private vehicles and those that do not. If your employer wants you to work changing hours on short notice, public transport doesn't work. Asking someone to show up an hour earlier than normal is difficult if that means they won't have a bus/train available. I want to see studies comparing various sectors. I'd bet good money that those working government and/or education jobs (the college towns in the above quote) are less likely to drive cars to work. And conversely, those who work private sector jobs (swing shifts, late hours, on-call etc) are more likely to drive cars. Personally, I now work in a government job (military) with a few hundred people in one building. Lots of people do bike/walk/run to work. We have bus stop right in front of our base, but nobody uses it. It just isn't reliable. Our bosses don't want to hear that we are late because the bus was stuck in traffic. We also sometimes have to work strange hours/shifts. Sometimes our day ends "whenever it ends". 2000 quickly becomes 0300. Will the bus get me home at a random hour and with enough time to sleep before the morning? My car/bike/feet sure will.

flyingpenguin 8y ago
> Asking someone to show up an hour earlier than normal is difficult if that means they won't have a bus/train available. I lived in Seoul for close to a year without a car. I never used a taxi and never looked up or planed my routes before I left home/work/shop/etc. The longest I remember waiting for a train/bus was around 4minutes. In this instance, I saw my bus pulling away as I was walking up. There was another of the same bus in line behind 3 other buses. I have lived in Denver without a car for close to 4 years. I pay 4x as much in public transit fees, I know all train times and bus times by heart and I plan when I leave based on those times. I usually bike to/from the train because it is literally faster than the bus stop less than 100ft from my house. We have a chicken and egg problem. Edit: God I miss the trains in Seoul. I don't know if they had times but the rule seemed to be if a train was pulling out, you just had to wait for the next train to finish pulling in.
esotericn 8y ago

closeparen 8y ago

Warning: speculation. Suppose that a city’s value and economy descend in large part from connectivity. A transit system is extremely useful at a few very specific points, but your connectedness drops off sharply as you get even a few blocks away from it, due to the extreme inefficiency of walking or (worse) waiting for a connecting bus. A road network’s utility is broad and diffuse, with gentle gradients of utility from place to place, as an extra few miles means little. Two points have to be very far apart indeed before they are noticeable different in terms of access/connectedness. So it makes complete sense to me that transit-oriented cities should be higher-maximum-value, higher-variance, while car oriented cities should be lower—maximum-value but much more equal. Exactly what the article finds.

perennate 8y ago
Doesn't a transit system complement a road network? Rapid transit serves the most trips when either the source or destination (or both) are in the urban center. The road network is typically most congested in the urban center. Thus, transit reduces congestion in the areas that would otherwise be most congested, making the road network more useful. Perhaps "car-oriented cities" simply haven't yet reached the density (and size of the high-density area) where transit becomes necessary.
- the_gastropod 8y ago
  This is kind of a chicken-egg situation. You can't reach the high-density requirement when cars are the primary means of transportation. Cars are an extraordinarily low-density means of transportation. And some evidence, based on city age, seems to suggest that cities built with cars in mind (e.g., non-east coast cities in the U.S.) tend to sprawl quite a bit.
  - perennate 8y ago
    That's true, I guess that ties back into a counterargument to the parent's point, that the connectedness issue with transit would be mitigated had the city been planned differently.
  - 8y ago

grawprog 8y ago

I'm not sure why but the transit system in my city seems to keep making decisions and changes that benefit people making short trips within the central areas while detrimenting those that use it to commute outwards to work. I'm not sure the reasoning for this. But every time the schedules or fares change it always becomes more difficult, takes longer and costs more to travel to outer areas.

cgy1 8y ago
Off the top of my head, the reason is probably because there just isn't a critical mass of people heading in the other direction that would make financial sense for them to run trains/buses in that direction, not to mention the last mile problem of how to get to your job after you're dropped in the suburban transit center with no public transit available to get you from the transit center to your office.
- grawprog 8y ago
  No it's more things like plans to change the fare system to one based on distance travelled, changing bus schedules so they end up more filled up but no longer arrive at offices and businesses for a time when people typically begin work, increasing multiple zone fares while leaving single zone fares the same, new train and bus routes being put in to service already well serviced areas while ignoring outlying areas. Back in 2001 or so the plan for the next train line was for a heavily underserviced area here. It was delayed and instead a line was put in in an area with multiple busses servicing it. They finally put the line they originally talked about around 2 or 3 years ago. But it still doesn't cover as much area as the original plans were and rather than putting new trains for this line like the did with the other one, they took some from the line that services the farther away areas. There are two big rushes of people in both directions. The trains and busses are packed always. The only reason I can think of is because they know most people commuting to work on transit have no choice. Where has people taking one time short trips usually do and they're trying to incentivise them to take transit at the expense of commuters. It also just so happens those areas tend to have a higher percentage of wealthier people living in the and members of the transit board.

cwal37 8y ago

Working my way through Alain Bertaud's Order Without Design: How Markets Shape Cities[1] at the moment and it's proving to be a really great resource for understanding this kind of thing and in the process marrying together a bunch of urban planning concepts and principles from economics. Also has some pretty great graphic design work on the charts and figures side of things and a nice layout wherein there are many small sections of 1-2 pages or less with condensed lessons. Not halfway through yet, but I feel pretty comfortable recommending it if you're into the topic area of this article (urban mobility, how commutes+jobs shape urban areas, etc.). [1] https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/order-without-design https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/order-without-design

rsync 8y ago

Here is everything you need to know about public transit, commuting and car culture in America: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wy2O/state-farm-backstory-truck-song-by-john-taylor https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wy2O/state-farm-backstory-truck-song...

bloomca 8y ago

I don't think there is such a great divide. The greater divide is between people who own a car (or cars) and who do not, however, seems for USA it is a divide between New York City and the rest of the country. Also, I can comment on one thing I personally enjoy a lot – walking. I lived in many European cities, and recently moved to USA, so I can comment on it. To be able to walk, you need to live close enough to your work / some places of interest (like ~3–4 km is a threshold usually), the path should be interesting and beautiful. USA fails miserably at "interesting and beautiful" part. Grid system makes it super boring, a lot of buildings are just a relatively small building and huge parking space around. There are no parks in between, no yards – moreover, you can bump into unsafe places! Architecture (in downtowns) is straight up horrible (although it is subjective). So, after couple of walks I have no desire altogether to walk around anymore – it is dirty, ugly, in some places overcrowded (since everybody works at the same spot in the downtown and time, essentially).

rst 8y ago
It's not just New York; there are a few other urban areas with significant numbers of commuters by transit -- Boston and San Francisco (with the crowd traveling on the "Google buses", and the number of tech jobs downtown) both come to mind. But there are lots of cities (Los Angeles most notoriously) where a car-free life is nearly impossible.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  I did car free in LA for awhile, it’s becoming an increasingly popular option actually. I did it by living close to work in a mostly urban area (Westwood), but one of my colleagues commutes in from Hollywood somewhere, he seemed happy with how it worked out.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
I too enjoy walking around European cites much more than US cities. On a Brussels trip I commented on how interesting and winding the streets were to a family friend, she pointed out that it made it harder for tanks to drive through a city. That matter of fact response brought into sharp focus the disparity between cites that had been rebuilt several times and those which haven't. There was also the adaptation from cities that were built when walking and horses were the main transportation modes which remain amenable to walking today. All said, it seems like a renewed interest in the impact of urban design on things like walkability and livability have come back into fashion and some cities are taking their cues from that with their urban renewal projects. As a really interesting example of that has been the evolution of zoning laws which allow for mixed use buildings (commercial and residential) which are sprouting up all around the Bay Area. This is something that was pretty much unthinkable in the late 90's.

wil421 8y ago

Basically looks like a population density map with NYC being the exception. Did anyone expect anything different?

julienb_sea 8y ago

I find this interesting. Of my tech coworkers and friends in Seattle, its 50/50 on car ownership, but the vast majority do not commute to work by car. I personally drive, but that is due to circumstance where public transit is inconvenient for me and I can easily afford to drive and park downtown, saving me 30-45 min both directions. In my view, driving a car becomes much more necessary once you exit the 20-something tech stage of life and actually have a family to support and move around. Also, unpopular opinion, public transit is only worthwhile for commuters. Shared uber/lyft is more efficient in pretty much all other situations, except for people wealthy enough to live in easy transit corridors. Subsidizing ride share infrastructure via uber/lyft would benefit a much broader class of people than investments in cute but pointless public transit like our Seattle streetcar.

curtis 8y ago

> We are cleaving into two nations—one where daily life revolves around the car, and the other where the car is receding in favor of walking, biking, and transit. Walking, biking, and transit are not actually the same thing, except that they are "not driving". So it's more accurate to say that there are two kinds of commuters, those that take cars and those that don't. There's absolutely nothing new about this though. It's likely true that more people are not driving these days, but that's got more to do with the fact that more of us are living in large cities where it's simply not possible for everyone to drive, and where transit is more practical because of the density. This notion that at some point in the future there will not be people commuting in cars is just dumb, and kind of tiresome. There's a lot of noise being generated by people who think driving a car is flat out immoral, and I'd contend this isn't a moral issue it's just a practical one, and I really wish it were treated this way.

the_gastropod 8y ago
Ignoring all the other problems, like car crashes, urban land-use, infrastructure spending to support them, etc, their emissions alone should be a clear moral issue when talking about cars. When the alternatives (walking, public transit, and bicycling) are orders of magnitude more efficient, it's absolutely a moral issue.
- briandear 8y ago
  Walking, public transport and biking are orders of magnitude more inefficient if you have kids or have to transport anything bigger than a backpack.
  - the_gastropod 8y ago
    Millions of New Yorkers (and billions worldwide) have kids, no car, and get along just fine. Subway trains are quite capable of carrying virtually anything you can carry. And bicycle trailers are pretty impressive specimens. And when you need to haul anything truly massive, sure, rent a Uhaul. But to pretend you need a 2-ton vehicle because you've got a couple little kids and a load of groceries for the week... c'mon.

ozten 8y ago

That visualization is too zoomed out to be useful. I was curious to zoom in on cities and some curious rural patches.

johngorse 8y ago

Why do people with car drive alone to work? There is a big chance that someone from your neighborhood is going at least in your direction. We practice co-driving in Europe all the time.

jpindar 8y ago
We call it carpooling, and it's not that uncommon, I've done it. Some highways have special "High Occupancy Vehicle" lanes to encourage it.
- kaybe 8y ago
  May I point to this corresponding mode of transport for car-less people: http://slug-lines.com/ http://slug-lines.com/
jqt 8y ago
Because it's better to not rely on anybody else, mostly.
umeshunni 8y ago
In my experience (US, SF Bay Area/Seattle) - people do this for a few reasons: 1. The coordination and time overhead of sharing their commute with another person is not worth the marginal benefits - HOV lanes are not present in most of the area to make a difference in commute time and gas prices are low enough that splitting a drive isn't worth the savings. 2. Their commute also involves other errands (shopping, going to the gym, dropping off or picking up children from school/daycare) that are inconvenient to do with another person in the car. In summary, it's convenient to drive alone and you are not penalized sufficiently for doing so.
scarface74 8y ago
I don’t want to deal with other people when I am in the car. I like the solitude. Some days I may be working from home, some days I may go in late and/or stay late. I don’t want the responsibility of being a means of transportation for another adult.

protomyth 8y ago

If you want the base data https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/ https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/

fulafel 8y ago

0.5% bike to work and 6% walk to work. Interesting that the difference is so large, you'd think that so many more people live withing short biking range vs walking range. I wonder what the stats are for other continents.

ndnxhs 8y ago
I assume in America walking is seen as a lot safer due to being physically separated a little bit from cars.
jly 8y ago
I do both (walk + bus and bike) but it's a lot more walk these days even though it takes almost 2x as long as biking for me. The main reason is that the bike commute is uncomfortable and it feels pretty dangerous, even though it's not that far. This is a big problem in US cities: roads are designed and built for cars, while cyclists and pedestrians are an afterthought.
souprock 8y ago
The law says you bike in the road, but most people can only bike at sidewalk speed. We'd need to change the law.
Zanta 8y ago
Safety is a big concern, and a place to safely store your bike (at home and at work) is another big one. I'd imagine lots of the walkers live in condos or apartments where storing a bike can be really tough.

njarboe 8y ago

I have never seen a train this empty during commute hours. An empty seat on each side of a person? Standing room only and packed like sardines is more realistic (and a needed density for economic viability of trains not subsidized by others). BTW, cars are also a mode of "transit".

skizm 8y ago

More than 50% of commuters drive to work alone in NYC? That seems insane to me. I don't know or know of a single person that drives to work in NYC. Tolls and parking alone would eat around $10k per year, plus even if it was free the traffic seems to make it not worth it when compared to subways. Also, if you're willing to shell out the money to drive, why not just take a cab or uber at that point? Is there some large subset of workers I'm not seeing that it would be more economic / convenient to drive into or around the city on a daily basis? (truck drivers / cab drivers / uber drivers don't count I wouldn't think?)

beefalo 8y ago
The data is for the whole NYC metro area, so the drivers are probably people that live and work in the suburbs and are not commuting to Manhattan. I have seen numbers that put people in the city proper at like 75% no car ownership.

SystemOut 8y ago

I don't understand why Americans love their cars so much. I grew up in Oklahoma and you pretty much have to have a car. Huge amount of land, not many people. Virtually no public transportation. I moved to the Bay Area back in 2000 and car-pooled for exactly one year of that time and then took BART the other 16 years before moving to Chicago. Even though I like driving I really hate traffic. Why would I sit in traffic when I can read/sleep/work/etc. It was cheaper as well. I wouldn't even talk about a different job unless they were within reasonable distance to a BART station. I moved to Chicago recently and now take Metra (commuter train) and then walk 15 minutes. It's a little sucky in winter (today was 16 F, Friday is expected to be -6 F in the morning - dress in layers and have warm boots). Even then, I wouldn't drive. The cost, the time, the potential for accidents just aren't worth it to me. I get why people drive in rural areas. You pretty much have to. But I don't know why folks don't push for mass transit more in cities. Cars are so expensive and monopolize your entire time getting to/from somewhere. I tried car pooling and really didn't like it since I'm essentially trapped with the same people every day. Mass transit can be crowded but I can still read or listen to audio books if I don't have a seat. But cars are ingrained in so much of the culture here plus I think a lot of people won't admit it but just don't like being around other people.

syn0byte 8y ago
Many large cities have terrible public transit that isn't just impractical but impossible. Public transport doesn't even run around the time of morning I head in to the office at 6am. If it DID run and I could take it, I would have to spend 3 additional hours each day in commute time between long round-about routes and waiting/switching bus/train lines. I would pay 5 dollars per day for this service. Almost double the cost to drive given the current 2.60/gal gas prices.
zjaffee 8y ago
Having a car gives you a stronger sense of having control over your transportation, namely you don't have to rely on other people, on timetables, or the stability of the regional transit system in order to get from place to place. You do have to deal with traffic, but for many people it's worth the tradeoff.
8y ago

pellefant 8y ago

Can be please stop seeing this propaganda here from Citylab whos aim is to promote UNs Agenda 2030?

frogpelt 8y ago

I know their job is to talk about cities and stuff. But what's the point? The United States is the 4th largest country in the world and the third most populous. Is it any wonder that we have a wide diversity of experiences?

ilaksh 8y ago

Most places in the US are just very spread out. It's too much area and too low density for trains and buses to cover. Simple as that. When I lived in New York I could walk to the ferry and then walk to my designated skyscraper a short distance away. But in southern California or Fort Worth, the only place with significant density is downtown. The houses and malls are spread over large distances. Sure there are sidewalks and it is possible to walk to the closest mall or Walmart, but that may easily take 20 or 30 minutes, that is the only place you can walk to and you generally feel like you are taking your life in your hands crossing traffic. You can theoretically live in a downtown area but for most places in the US it's too expensive for the average person to buy a home or even for most people to rent. And again there is a massive area around the downtown that you would not be able to go to without a car. It just comes down to this: there is just so much land that people wanted to use all of it. So it is designed to sprawl out. Then people get used to having single family houses with big yards and the skyscrapers are far away and everyone needs a car.

grabbby 8y ago

Grabbing really only takes on a disconcerting tone when your grabbing tits, grabbing ass, grabbing them by the balls. When the context is food, it’s mostly harmless.

wffurr 8y ago

Interesting definition of "class" in the article. It tries to contrast the knowledge-based "creative class" with the "working class" when it reality both are primarily earning wages and salaries rather than dividends and capital gains.